Jump to content

User talk:Kleinzach/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Quartal and quintal harmony

I've just been reviewing this article and it strikes me that there are far too many musical examples for the average Wiki reader. One or two have MIDI files to listen to but most do not. I suspect most readers (even musicians) will glance at the lead and move on... How can we improve it? --Jubilee♫clipman 16:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not qualified to judge this or suggest improvements. Is the article sound? Is it accurate? If so, I might not have any problem with it. I tend to think that WP pages are written at different levels for different readers. For every article that is over-detailed, we probably have 100 which are minimal or full of errors, so I prefer to work on the latter rather than the former. Anyway having said all that you may well be a much better judge of this particular article than I am. --Kleinzach 13:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Understood fully: that makes sense. However, the article appears to have multiple issues which go way beyond the overabundance of musical examples. While the quality of writing, of itself, is excellent, the actual content appears to be full of inconsistencies and irrelevancies. As I understand it, Quartal Harmony relates to harmony that is based on fourths; the article discusses melody and uses Beethoven's 0p.110, Bach's Inventions and other music written in "Tertian Harmony" as examples of what might be called "Quartal Melody", to coin a phrase. Many of the musical examples are related to that; indeed the article itself contrasts Quartal and Tertian. I'm not even sure if Perotin's fourths and fifths are relevant here, since he mainly uses them in a melodic sense and only between two parts (the third part being a drone). In the sense I understand it, Quartal Harmony was first fully explored by Scriabin based on harmonic ideas he found in Liszt and Wagner (the Tristan chord, for example). It has been exploited ever since by Modernists and Postmodernists. If am right, then the article is full of errors and badly in need of an overhaul. Furthermore, the article is mainly a direct translation of the German page (accomplished by Rainwarrior) as it stood in 2006 - and as it still stands for the most part... Both articles appear to have been accepted as correct for all that time: for that reason I am reluctant to edit it yet. Maybe Quartal Harmony really does include melody? Two minds...! I'll contact Rainwarrior and have already called attention to my concerns on the talk page. Perhaps I need to involve the Classical music project (as well as ours) even though they have never tagged it? --Jubilee♫clipman 20:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Melodia/Bizarre behaviour by user

For some time, I've become accustomed to one particular user (Melodia) posting regularly (with invariably hostile comments) within minutes of my involvement in any debate, especially if it involves any kind of infobox. He/she is now making changes to this page, deleting a message by another user here and then apparently thinking better of it and reverting it here.

I am asking the user to stop doing this. I suggest he/she takes this page off his/her watchlist and starts contributing to the encyclopedia. (I am leaving a {{talkback}} tag on this user's talk page.) --Kleinzach 22:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's called "I accidently hit the rollback button". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Your stats page

Contemporary Music project has tagged 2,691 against 9,282 for Classical Music project?! That's 29%, if one assumes that all the CCM articles are tagged by CM - which they aren't, though they logically shoud be (since Contemporary Music is a simple subset of Classical Music, in our definition). Once CM tag all the articles CCM have tagged, CCM could still end up with a quarter of all their articles. I am begining to see the full implications what you meant last month when you flagged up the "tag" problem: we can't possibly be resonsible for a quarter of all Classical Music articles if we only cover a tenth of the period from 1500! Obviously, the original members were massively over zealous! Oh well: we have other issues for now, I guess... --Jubilee♫clipman 20:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

'Over zealous' is putting it politely. (The banner was even put on the Tristan chord article which takes us back to the 1850s!). The banners were placed by bot, not by hand. The 'original members' selected existing Classical Music categories and all the articles in those categories were bannered. Unfortunately the project didn't spend the time working out a special set of categories designed specifically for the project (unlike, say, the Opera project). They included the 20th-century cats (developed by CM). These are very large. Category:20th-century classical composers has 2,100 articles plus subcats. They also included Modernist composers/pieces. Whether they had any means of filtering these cats I don't know, however they were listed here before I removed them. --Kleinzach 00:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh well... we can remove them as we spot them. No point going mad trying to find them all. OTOH, perhaps the Tristan chord is still relevant since it is still influential? Then again so is ii7-V7-I and we don't want to flag Supertonic seventh chord...! Anyway, I'm looking at trying to write some of the missing articles at present: having fun with "Post-tonal music theory" in a sandbox. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Mmm. I thought Bach was influential. Anyway it's only one part of the reform process. Actually we may be able to use a bot to remove the superfluous banners, but I need to think about this and it may require some work on the category tree first. Categories are easy to create but a pain to get rid of, so it's usually a good idea to think it all through before taking action. --Kleinzach 02:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed: don't do any thing we might regret! I've updated the link in the post above BTW but the article is in place anyway: Post-tonal music theory. What do you think? --Jubilee♫clipman 03:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I forgot to mention: I've also completed the cycle of Carter Qtets, though they all need expansion. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Article looks good - well organized - though not my area! Are you going to use inline citations? Everybody (except Jerome Kohl!) uses that system. --Kleinzach 03:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
<wink, wink!> Yes I might redo it in the "normal" style. You know what, though, I don't mind either way now (after my intial recoiling away from it). BTW, I've also created an Introduction for the 20th-century classical music article out of the mess that was "The List"... Could you have a look and make (nice) comments on the talk page? --Jubilee♫clipman 18:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 Done --Kleinzach 00:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

DRV

Apart from disagreeing with you on a substantive issue—which is a fairly unremarkable occurrence between two editors on WP—I'm not sure what I did to you to warrant this comment, which I'm assuming is some sort of strange combination of assuming bad faith and sarcasm. Users can and do disagree on the issues without stooping to stuff like this. (For instance—to take another involved user, BrownHairedGirl and I frequently disagree about various issues, but we still respect one another as people and don't take the disagreements personally.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My question obviously ht a raw nerve, but I don't wish to discuss this here on my own talk page. This isn't the right place. --Kleinzach 04:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't take your comment as a legitimate question, I took it as an insult. Am I wrong in assuming that? When one user insults another, in my experience it's usually easiest to deal with it one-on-one on a user talk page. I'm not clear on where you think would be better or what you have in mind ... would you prefer WP:ANI? Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Works by Richard Wagner

See talk page. Category:Compositions by composer is a subcategory within Category:Works by artist. Since the category contains written works and compositions, it would go in both parent categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

More than one editor has already explained to you that Category:Works by artist is for visual artists. Please stop this edit warring. Also please don't use my user page, as I previously requested. --Kleinzach 03:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
It is actually being used for visual artists and musical artists, if you have a look at it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Véronique (operetta)

Hello. I notice that someone has been making changes to information that you added to the article, such as the vocal ranges in the list of roles. Would you kindly review these? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Classical composers timeline

Thanks for the message. There's been some discussion about the template on the Classical music talk page and I was trying to address two of the concerns: firstly that the legend was in the wrong place (which worked ok) and secondly that the names of the composers were too small and blobby-looking. The trouble is that, in making the font larger, the names tend to extend beyond the coloured boxes. The coloured boxes are set to the lengths of the lifetimes of the composers, so the problem is especially bad for a composer with a long name and a short life! If you think I have just made things worse, please revert my edits to the template. The discussion on the Classical music page is already suggesting some sort of review of the timeline: there are some notable omissions (such as Tallis) and some surprise inclusions. I think we could come up with a better list of composers then re-do the template, based on the new list. I'm a bit reluctant to do any major changes to the template until all that is sorted out. But, as I say, please revert what I've done if it's unhelpful. Bluewave (talk) 09:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the whole thing probably needs to be re-done from scratch. I think it is really pushing the basic timeline template beyond its capabilities. I'd suggest that we start by getting an agreed list of composers...I don't know how difficult it will be to get consensus, when everyone has their favourites. I would prefer to agree a list of "essential" composers (ones that pretty much define particular eras of music or the transitions between eras), I'd then do a second list of "desirable" composers and then pick and choose from them to get a reasonable looking timeline. Bluewave (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Good morning! (I guess I'm in a different time zone from you!) My experience is that it's almost impossible to get agreement on a list of names. Everybody has different ideas (depending on whether they like operas or string quartets or piano music etc.) and it all gets childish. If strict conditions are agreed in the beginning, re design and numbers it makes it a bit easier. Anyway I've made three suggestions about improving the design. I think we can probably produce something that looks reasonably clear even if it is still very clunky. If someone produced a full colour jpeg graphic we wouldn't have the aesthetic problem — it could look professional — but of course it woud be an image so it couldn't be edited. --Kleinzach 23:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for editing: John Serry Sr.

Dear Kleinzach: Just a quick note to express my sincerest thanks for your thoughtful and expert editing and cleanup endeavors on the article John Serry Sr.. As the article's primary author I am very grateful for your professional editorial assistance and careful attention to the details surrounding the construction of the article and its central themes. It is both refreshing and inspiring to encounter an editor who exhibits an in depth, comprehensive and insightful comprehension of classical music and its evolution in the United States during the early 20th century. It is even more inspiring to encounter an editor who is aware of the endeavors made by musicians to elevate the performance of classical music in the United States during this period. Thank you for accepting the article into the Classical Music Portal where I am certain it will be of value to researchers and students of classical music in the years ahead!

Since your interests clearly extend into the realm of opera you may wish to read another article which I authored on the operatic conductor Alfredo Antonini. Maestro Antonini was a student of the legendary conductor Arturo Toscanini. Prior to assuming the post of music director at the CBS Network in the 1950s he conducting numerous operatic performances in New York City for audiences numbering in the tens of thousands while featuring such operatic luminaries as Beverly Sills. Jan Peerce, Robert Merrill and Richard Tucker. Sadly, his efforts in the development of grand opera in the United States seem to have been largely overlooked in the later half of the 20th century for reasons that are not entirely clear. At any rate, I hope that you enjoy the article and thanks once again for your exceptional editorial assistance. Best wishes for the Holiday... Respectfully, --Pjs012915 (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Usertalk:pjs012915

Thank you for your very kind words. I've had a look at Alfredo Antonini and it looks fine. My only concern is that it has a lot of red links. Were you intending to make these into articles? If not I think we might 'black' them out. I think we might also remove the infobox from John Serry Sr., thought that depends on whether we regard him as primarily 'classical' or a 'composer' (those projects don't use infoboxes) or a popular musician (where an infobox is normal). Regards. --Kleinzach 00:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Kleinzach : Thanks again for your insightful suggestions. As per above I have removed the red links from Alfredo Antonini. Since John Serry Sr. was primarily a classical instrumentalist who strove to introduce the classical accordion to wider audiences both inside and ouside the concert hall, I have attempted to streamline the info box so that is resembles the boxes used for the classical instrumentalists: Pablo Casals and Isaac Stern. I have also included a note at the top of the info box requesting that the article is supported by the WikiProject Musicians. I hope that this is permitted and that the article is incorporatd into the Classical Music portal. If you prefer that I remove the info box entirely just let me know. Thanks again for your kind assistance. Meliora! Respectfully --Pjs012915 (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915
OK. I should clarify that (1) WikiProject Musicians is basically for popular artists, as is their 'Musical artist' infobox. (2). the project with overall responsibility for classical conductors, instrumentalists etc is Classical music which has a guideline against using biographical infoboxes, so if John Serry Sr. was a 'classical' instrumentalist, then he shouldn't have an infobox. (Pablo Casals and Isaac Stern actually shouldn't have had them.) Best. --Kleinzach 23:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Kleinzach - Thanks for the clarification. Kindly retain the article in Classical music--I shall attempt to remove the info box as per your request and retain the photograph with a caption. Feel free to let me know if you require any additional modicfications and thanks again. --Pjs012915 (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915
Looks good! Thanks. --Kleinzach 22:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Kleinzach: Many thanks for the above. I shall attempt to locate a color photograph of the musician from his later years performing at the organ. If I succeed, I'll try to upload it through Wikipedia Commmons in the weeks ahead. Thanks again! User:pjs012915--Pjs012915 (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Cathy Berberian

Just out of curiousity, why does Cathy Berberian not fall within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Contemporary_music? Sparafucil (talk) 10:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Just dates. She's a bit early for the present scope of the project, though it's no big deal if you want to put her back in. (Also almost all performers of her period are with CM or opera.) --Kleinzach 10:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for fun (Template:Pieces-style)

User:Jubileeclipman/Template:Pieces-style

I think that makes a point!

--Jubilee♫clipman 03:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Great. All we need is to develop that a bit and we can scrap all the articles! --Kleinzach 05:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hehehe! --Jubilee♫clipman 23:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Conductors: infoboxes

Ages ago you pointed me in the direction of a ruling that infoboxes should not be used for articles about conductors. Could you be so kind as to remind me where it is to be found? I've just run across a particularly horrible one, but am loth to blitz it without citing due authority. - Tim riley (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's here. Thanks. --Kleinzach 22:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Much obliged! Tim riley (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

George Frideric Handel

Well, that's the only date I could confirm when I looked in the source. You may be right and I may be wrong but it IS sighted at the end of the sentence and in that book (I have a copy in my possession) that is what I found. I am just trying to fulfill my requirements for class. It's due Thursday and then after that it's all yours (well, it may take a few days before he gets to look through it so a week tops)! So if you could just give me time to finish this project and not change anything I do that would great. I would love to hear your feedback, but I may just have to go with what I already have! Thanks for understanding! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaddieRhea (talk • contribs) 22:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I will reply on the George Frideric Handel page. --Kleinzach 23:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Isaac

Hi Kelinzach, No I'm not...I'm a masters student at Indiana University, Jacobs School of Music. I updated the article as part of a project for my class on Heinrich Isaac, taught by Renaissance scholar Giovanni Zanovello.

The Union University project looks pretty cool though. Are you doing it?

Jackie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamatava (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Tallis

Sorry-I don't mean to ignore all of the revisions you're making to the stuff I'm adding, and it is not my intention to bully my way through anything. I'm just editing it for a class requirement, and you're welcome to change whatever you feel is necessary. I've finished messing with it, and my professor said that he can just look at past revisions to tell what I've done. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. --Taraint (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Taraint

AfD nomination of Requiem (Mozart)/Tuba mirum

An article that you have been involved in editing, Requiem (Mozart)/Tuba mirum, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requiem (Mozart)/Tuba mirum. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

List of operas by Cherubini

Thanks for the note. It has long been a matter of great annoyance to me that the opéra comique Médée is only known to many people as Medea, a bastard Italianised version with entirely inappropriate recitatives by Lachner (whether sung by Callas or not) that Cherubini had nothing to do with.

You say "Normally in these lists we note alternative names under which the operas were performed", but I really don't see why translated titles - except, perhaps, English translations, though many of those are problematic - should appear in these lists - if they do - unless the composer was involved: there's no mention in List of operas by Mozart of Il flauto magico (with recitatives by God knows who and the Queen of the Night named as Astrafiammante), for example. Is The Grand Duchess of Gerolstein to be found in the Offenbach list, or Le Crépuscule des dieux in the Wagner one?

Apologies for not replying to your email of whenever it was - it arrived with a lot of other stuff when I was away and never quite made it to the top of the to-do list. Might you be contemplating returning to WP:WPO, where everything is relatively tranquil? Hope all is well. Best. --GuillaumeTell 18:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to reply. I've been trying to sort this out. My understanding is that Cherubini was involved in the Vienna 'Medea' performances of 1802/1809, and they have nothing to do with Lachner. Am I wrong? (Of course, I agree we shouldn't use Il flauto magico etc.) BTW I'm still writing opera articles, but I'm not intending to join the project. Most of the action seems to be at CM these days. Best. --Kleinzach 09:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've been looking into this, too.
  • First, the RH column of the table says "Place, theatre". Surely all that can be put there is the place and theatre of first performance? Anything else needs to go into a "Notes" column, as in the Handel list.
  • Second, what was put on in Vienna in 1802 (Almanacco) or 1803 (Opera Grove) (and previously in Berlin in 1800) seems to have been the original opéra comique in a German translation - actually, two German translations by different authors (Herklots and Trietschke). These tables aren't set up to include all (or, indeed, any) translations of the original libretto, are they? I am not clear about when or where the first Italian translation appeared, but that's irrelevant, too.
  • Third, it is known that c500 bars were cut for the 1809 Vienna performances (I have no idea why, or where the cuts were made) and that a printed edition of this version was published. It is generally assumed that the cuts were made by Cherubini, but Grove implies that that that is not definite. Nevertheless, some sort of note about this is appropriate in the table, preferably in a Notes column.
  • Fourth, the spoken dialogue was supplanted by recitatives composed in the 1850s and possibly later by Franz Lachner (1803-90), Luigi Arditi (1822-1903) and who knows who else - clearly without the composer's sanction (he died in 1842). Including this information in the table is like including information in other similar tables that in the 1920s/30s Artur Bodanzky composed recits for Zauberflöte, Fidelio, Freischütz, maybe other spoken-dialogue operas, at the behest of Giulio Gatti-Casazza.
Hope this helps! --GuillaumeTell 22:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
OK. We don't have a Notes column but we can put this kind of information into a footnote, so that is what I have done (using the original text for now). Perhaps you would like to edit this on the basis of the information you have found (your 2nd/3rd points above)? I certainly agree with you that we don't need the info in your 4th point, but obviously this should go in the article on the opera itself. Does that sound a sensible way of dealing with this? --Kleinzach 23:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Floaty thing

I like the floaty thing at the side of your talk page (talk at bottom etc), so I've pinched it for mine! --Jubilee♫clipman 06:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ferruccio Busoni discography

This page's name has mutated slowly. Could you please add a sentence about your name change to the top section of the talk page: Talk:Ferruccio Busoni discography (compositions)#History of page name Thanks! --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Kleinzach 03:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Seems like a fine change, don't see any problems. Should we also change the page name for Recordings by Ferruccio Busoni, which includes recordings Busoni made as a pianist? (Someday I'm hoping to add his piano roll recordings to this page as well, or to a separate page. I'm not sure which would be better or if it makes much difference. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah! This is tricky. The other discographies don't distinguish between those dedicated to works (e.g. Symphony No. 7 (Sibelius) discography) and those dedicated to performers (e.g. Simon Rattle discography). You wouldn't consider combining the two pages, would you? --Kleinzach 08:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The discographies can get pretty long, especially when recording details and information from reviews (critical reaction) are included. The Ferruccio Busoni discography (compositions) is already a bit long. The section "List of recorded works by category" sort of acts as an index which provides intra-page links to the "Recording details" section (and return links from there), which is especially useful for recordings which include multiple works and works from multiple genres. It's really just one discography, not two, and it's currently very convenient to keep it all on one page.

I would like to keep the Recordings by Ferruccio Busoni (as pianist) as a separate page, since I am hoping to add a lot more information to it, for example: Busoni's description of one of the sessions, from a letter to his wife; some critical reaction, i.e. from Harold Schonberg's critique of them in his book The Great Pianists; and, of course, Busoni's piano roll recordings, which are extensive.

As an aside, I could see an even greater problem for someone like Bernstein, if someone ever creates detailed discographies for him, e.g., one might have pages named: Leonard Bernstein discography (as conductor), Leonard Bernstein discography (as composer), Leonard Bernstein discography (as pianist). (I'm not saying these will ever be created, but you never know).

Perhaps we could name the existing Busoni pages as follows: "Ferruccio Busoni discography (as composer)" and "Ferruccio Busoni discography (as pianist)". Do you think that would be a satisfactory approach? (I am certainly willing to do the moves and updates of the redirects and other links.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent idea - the titles would be very clear and could be used as precedents. Over to you then! --Kleinzach 06:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for removing the Habanera trivia. When I saw no one had responded to my comment on the Talk page I was all set to do it -- and then saw you had already done it. Nice. Ztrawhcs (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Actually I hadn't seen your note when I deleted it, but the various Classical music projects have guidelines against trivia. Best. --Kleinzach 22:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Fidelio discography

I've noted your comment - and added one of my own.

However, if I hadn't created the box in the first place, the garbage on the original list would have remained untouched for ever.... Go back and take a look: it was little better than it is now, with singers listed as a/b/c/d etc - with the slashes between names. At the very least, this has provoked you and another editor to take a look and begin to tidy up the list, something which I doubt would have happened without creating the box.

I'll leave it to others with more knowledge of this opera and its recordings to get the discography into better shape. Viva-Verdi (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the mess was all done by Andrew Powell in Sept. (No criticism of your edits was intended.) I wish we could dump it all back on his userspace . . . though I guess that's not possible. --Kleinzach 00:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Michael Rosenzweig (composer)

I have nominated Michael Rosenzweig (composer) for deletion. I would be grateful if you could let the community know your opinion about this. Cheers --Karljoos (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Kleinzach 23:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!--Karljoos (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Beethoven's relatives

Just to let you know that both articles have now been re-listed, with the request to clarify each editor's present position. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kleinzach/Archive_27&oldid=841342939"